LET’S HAVE A THREESOME

I’ve received a flurry of letters from the guardian of public ethics in the last two days. So rather than write three separate blog entries I’m going to do more with less and put all three in one blog entry. This blog will contain a new name that dope, a Barry “informal opinion” and the latest example of the commission making a mistake that they will expect everyone to understand but if the lobbying community did it special counsel ralf would impose one of his unconstitutional non-authorized by statute late fees.

First NAME THAT DOPE
I got a letter from this dope stating that “A matter has come to the attention of the Commission on Public Integrity(‘Commission”) involving the name of one of my clients which is different from the matter currently before the Commission in which you represent the name of one of my clients. Please advise whether you will be representing the name of one of my clients in this matter as well.”
Which dope wrote that gem? I know the dopes at the commission think I am all powerful (and really from their perspective can you blame them LOL) but I do not possess a crystal ball and have no clue what the dope is talking about since I am not fluent in dope.
Here are some hints:
This dope is the boss of a previous dope.
This dope supervises someone whose head looks like a crystal ball.
This dope travels with a good luck charm in the form of a wooden Indian
Give up? It’s the commission’s own Inspector Clouseau Chief Investigator Robert J. Shea. Good work Bobby how many brain cells did you use up putting pen to paper to write that example of “duhhhh”? And this is the careful precise work of a trained investigator? No wonder they showed a blind governor a check and asked if it was his signature. I am afraid Bobby I need a little more information to answer your question maybe you can get Clark and the wooden Indian to help you write the follow-up.
Second I got another “informal opinion” from Barry the only problem? I never asked him for one because there is no such thing as an “informal opinion” so why would I bother. I asked for a commission advisory opinion pursuant to statute (that make 7 I’m waiting for now) on the gift ban. I’m sensing a split amongst the commissioners on how they interpret the gift ban so getting an advisory opinion might provide more clarity then the last 8 discussions they’ve had on the subject at commission meetings. Anyway I reminded Barry that I could care less what he thinks and will now forward my request directly to the chair so that she can see just how much he doesn’t share with her. But in reading Barry’s analysis I was shocked to learn that “An actual intent to influence is not required for there to be a violation of the gift ban.” WOW all the commission needs is to believe is the following “an inference of intent to influence such public official is one among any inferences and such inference is not unreasonable under the circumstances” HOLY SH*T All Barry needs now is to convince himself that the inference he draws from that mess he calls a brain is not unreasonable to him and you are guilty of a misdemeanor. A show of hands who thinks Barry Ginsberg should be the conscience of Albany? Remember this is the same Barry Ginsberg that the IG said helped disgraced ex executive Director Herb Teitelbaum cover-up his role in leaking information to the target of an investigation. The same Barry Ginsberg whose wife is a lobbyist. The same Barry Ginsberg that decided Commissioner Alonso’s law firm did not give a gift of his services to the New York State Senate based on the fact Barry thought that that inference was unreasonable. The same Barry Ginsberg that is handling the Jeff Sachs investigation once someone tells him what to do. You know what Barry? I want to see the commissioners put in writing that offering something of value to the spouse of a public official when the offeror (lobbyist) has no matters before the public official, could lead anyone to the reasonable inference of an intent to influence such public official. Only in Patrick the starfish’s world of bikini bottom does that make sense Patrick oops I mean Barry.
Third I got two letters from the commission today one was about one of my clients that made a mistake and registered a client in error but the second envelope although addressed to me contained a letter for a lobbyist and client that I have no connection to. Hey mistakes happen but if you’ve ever been on the wrong side of a special counsel ralf rant that he will not waive a late fee because you or your client made a mistake you can appreciate how much I am going to enjoy not telling them which letter they mailed warning of a failure to register was not received. If you get fined by the commission and they never sent you a warning letter get in touch I may have your golden ticket. To the commission employees that write letters be nice it could be your signature on that letter.

I’ve gotta admit that was my first threesome and it felt so good I’m sure I’m gonna do it again sometime soon. All I need is a little help from my friends at the commission.